| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/16/2005 10:14:22 AM · #1 |
With all the digital photographers on this site, and all the hoopla about digital catching phenomenon better than other apparatice, has anyone ever actually saught after, or caught paranormal on film?
I have a photo to share from someone at another site. They posted it wondering what it was they caught on film. I will show the photo and the story behind the photo here later, but would like to know if anyone is into this sort of thing or has any photos that are questionable on it.
Thanks!
Rose |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 10:21:28 AM · #2 |
| Why are you going to show it later? Why not now? Was that a teaser like the news stations do? I can't wait until later. I have not captured anything like that, I have not tried to either. Maybe I should go ghost hunting on weekend. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 10:21:39 AM · #3 |
I designed a web site for a local paranormal group. While involved with the group, I was shown many photos of what they considered "paranormal".
Now, I'm not saying I don't believe in the paranormal, quite the contrary. But, none of the photos they showed me made me believe they had caught paranormal activity,
Paranormal hobbyist like to talk about capturing orbs. They showed me a lot of photos of orbs. However, I believe that all the orbs they captured were dust or mist that got popped by the flash (that's what I believe, but they'd have nothing of the theory).
I was shown several aperitions, some were cool effects, but I quickly dismissed them as a reason not to smoke while searching for ghosts or at least not to breathe while shooting in a graveyard on a chilly night.
I've tried going with them and shooting (why not, I am a photographer).I got absolutely nothing ... why? I think because I took these things in mind... hold my breath while shooting, use off camera flash (so not to illuminate dust particles and such).
Personally, I'd like to see a photo I can't disprove, but I haven't yet.
Message edited by author 2005-12-16 10:24:03.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2005 10:43:24 AM · #4 |
| It IS possible to take a picture of the unknown... at least until it's known. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 10:44:03 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
I designed a web site for a local paranormal group. While involved with the group, I was shown many photos of what they considered "paranormal".
Now, I'm not saying I don't believe in the paranormal, quite the contrary. But, none of the photos they showed me made me believe they had caught paranormal activity,
Paranormal hobbyist like to talk about capturing orbs. They showed me a lot of photos of orbs. However, I believe that all the orbs they captured were dust or mist that got popped by the flash (that's what I believe, but they'd have nothing of the theory).
I was shown several aperitions, some were cool effects, but I quickly dismissed them as a reason not to smoke while searching for ghosts or at least not to breathe while shooting in a graveyard on a chilly night.
I've tried going with them and shooting (why not, I am a photographer).I got absolutely nothing ... why? I think because I took these things in mind... hold my breath while shooting, use off camera flash (so not to illuminate dust particles and such).
Personally, I'd like to see a photo I can't disprove, but I haven't yet. |
Well, I am a paranormal buff. Actually, in my spare time, I read photos for others. Sounds strange, and it is strange, but the ability is there and I seem to be right by high percentage when I feel I see or sense something. Usually its just a name or a situation or an instance I can't explain that I sense, and I ask the photographer for validation. NO, I can't tell futures and don't have a crystal ball..LOL..and many have written me for that information - but that is not in my ability, nor up for discussion at all with me. BUT, back to the paranormal verses scientific....
First of all, orbs are nothing more than energy, WHEN you get an actual orb. Orbs have factors that must be taken into mind when accessing their validity. 1) It must be solid and not transparent 2) It must emit its own light 3) usually a face or two can be matrixed from it 4) it must have a nucleus 4) not usually a perfect round. However, even given all of that, you still can only place an orb not as an entity/being/spirit, but a type of energy. Most orbs are dust, moisture, snow, etc.
As for other things such as apparitions, vortexs, mystical mists, you will find in most photos just what you mention fotomann. Smoke, breath, condensation build up on lense, heat/humidity factors, matrixing, double exposure, over exposure, reflections from light sources, etc.
Then there are those that have no real explination, and that is why I care to share this subject here, along with a photo or two, where there are a vast amount of digital photographers who may have better knowledge as to what may have occured scientifically.
I have to put the photo in my photobucket before uploading it here first, and that is why I said I would post it later. I will do that now.
Rose |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 11:00:46 AM · #6 |
Ok, here is one photo, and then here are the stats for this photo:
1. There are really only supposed to be 4 people in this shot.
2. This was taken with a one time shoot camera throw away in 2003 at a graduation
3. 24 shots were taken in all, and none of the before or after shots of this photo have the people or situations in it to be a double exposure
4. this school is said to be haunted and many in this area send their child to private school rather than enter them into this one
5. it is said on graduation day, and other important school days, this same type of phenomenon appears in photos along with experiences
6. this school is built over indian burial grounds
Ok, I think that is about it from the summarization from that entire thread at that site. Before and after pictures were shown at the other site, all crisp and clear and no anomolies.
So far this has been discounted as hair, and those there with camera and developing knowledge are finding it a bit hard to explain, and they are total skeptics.
In looking closely, you will see many figures and people in this photo, and some from what looks like the 70's and some from even further back. I have named three of them in the photo from my own reading, and I was correct by what the owner remembers; however, about nine or so other ominous type figures and faces cannot be explained.
Many a skeptic has said this is double exposure, and even counted on that being fact, but once given other information and evidence of that day, camera, and scenario, they have since discounted their theory and have come up empty handed.
If you have any questions, I would be happy to see if I can get the answers for you. I can also make this bigger, but sized it for this site.
The figures circled were circled by the photo owner and are circled because they are not supposed to be in the shot. One person that was supposed to be in the shot, only his arm can be seen, but it is attached to another body and not his own.
The big red circle to the far left is a partial of what looks like a large hand and fingernail, and no hand crossed the camera.
Rose
//i4.photobucket.com/albums/y127/ssp-enhance/index22.jpg
Message edited by ClubJuggle - Changed large image to link. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 11:09:26 AM · #7 |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 11:13:11 AM · #8 |
| It'd be more helpful if you poitned out the faces that are supposed tio be in there. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 11:27:00 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by Rankles:
It'd be more helpful if you poitned out the faces that are supposed tio be in there. |
Let me see if I can do that for you, hold on.
Rose
Ok, here it is:
Photo Here
Not sure if that will work. If you want to still see the photo, and it doesn't work, let me know.
Message edited by author 2005-12-17 18:07:48. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 11:33:18 AM · #10 |
There were six people posing for that picture, not four. The bright shapes were caused by a light leak in the camera or during processing. Most likely a spark of static electricity during processing.
Show me ANY image of detailed abstract areas or random shapes, and I'll find faces in it. Human minds are very good at finding facial patterns like that. I don't personally believe that spirits are waving at me from wallpaper and potato chips. ;-) |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 11:37:30 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
There were six people posing for that picture, not four. The bright shapes were caused by a light leak in the camera or during processing. Most likely a spark of static electricity during processing.
Show me ANY image of detailed abstract areas or random shapes, and I'll find faces in it. Human minds are very good at finding facial patterns like that. I don't personally believe that spirits are waving at me from wallpaper and potato chips. ;-) |
Yes, Scalvert, and that is what is referred to as matrixing (finding what looks like faces, or usually faces, along with other things in a photo). Seeing a face in a tree trunk, or a flower in a cloud.
I am quite getting the idea you are skeptic, ..LOL...and that is fine. I don't look at all photos and think I am being waved at either. But some things ARE unexplainable, and not all able to be scientifically explained. They may not even be paranormal, or even "hauntings" as we refer to them, but there is no scientific name for them "yet" and so the study continues.
Oh, and there were not six people but four people. I think the phototaker can count and her daughter was there who can verify that as well.
Rose
Message edited by author 2005-12-16 11:38:45. |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 11:57:51 AM · #12 |
I'll come back and check the posts on this a bit later. I am off to wash my persian cats (if I took pictures of THAT you would really see some phenomenon! LOL), and then making a gingerbread house project today with my son.
Talk more soon!
***IF there are any spirits out there, would you please do something about the low balling of my cheese entry! I would at least like the yellow ribbon on this one! LOL..***
Rose |
|
|
|
12/16/2005 12:47:56 PM · #13 |
Im suspecting is a fault with the film from a disposable 1 time use camera. Many of those are on the very low side of quality.
I recently had to explain to someone why some $2.00 1 time use camera bought in small town mexico produced bad images. And had to also explain that under the available light conditions they were shooting was also a factor.
THey did not understand one bit, and told me the vendor who sold it to them said it was a great camera and they would get great photos from it. They beleived him and not me.
James |
|
|
|
12/17/2005 03:29:09 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
There were six people posing for that picture, not four. The bright shapes were caused by a light leak in the camera or during processing. Most likely a spark of static electricity during processing.
Show me ANY image of detailed abstract areas or random shapes, and I'll find faces in it. Human minds are very good at finding facial patterns like that. I don't personally believe that spirits are waving at me from wallpaper and potato chips. ;-) |
I'm gonna have to go with SCalvert on this one... this is just a photographic accident, nothing paranormal going on here.
If I were to see this in an otherwise well exposed, well developed photo, I would look at it with more open eyes. It's just a shame that ghosts always show up in bad photos
lol ... speaking of bad photos ... people claim that there are faces in this one of mine 
If you look between the branches to the tree to the right, especially zoomed in ... you can make out faces in the photo .. however it's just shadows and staining of the brick. BTW, this house supposedly burned in the 50's killing a mother and 3 children (and is said to been burned by the husband) ... folk lore huh?
|
|
|
|
12/17/2005 04:10:47 PM · #15 |
Hmmm, interesting thread. Here's a pic of mine, taken at a covered bridge in rural VT. I was out with my Rebel and my little brother was playing with my old Nikon P&S and came up with this. If you look at the "bubble" (and I have no idea what caused it) there looks to be a woman standing in a hat and old-fashioned dress, perhaps with a man to her right. My brother saw them first and showed me, he said it looked like she had a rifle and the guy was a soldier.
Who knows....not sure that I buy that it's ghosts, prolly just some weird flare, but it's kinda cool.
Full Pic
Close up of area
|
|
|
|
12/17/2005 04:51:07 PM · #16 |
if it was an indian burial ground, shouldnt there be indian spirits in the photo and not what appears to be teenage caucasion females?
i'm not a total disbeliever in this stuff, though. just most of it.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2005 04:55:10 PM · #17 |
Is it just my computer or does anyone else have difficulty with the screen viewing of this thread? It's too big for my screen and I'm having to close the bookmark frame and still have to use the slides at the bottom to read the posts. Darned annoying. Odd thing is this is the only thread to do it so far.
Also, not having even the slightest idea of what happens to my film after I take it to the local drug store......
Back in the mid - late 80's I was living in DeKalb, IL. I owned my own 35 mm ps, Minolta Freedom II. It was late spring, early summer and a NEW roll of film. All of the pictures except for one were photos I could account for. One photo appeared to be of someone skiing down a very snow covered mountain. Last I knew there are no mountains around DeKalb and I didn't take that photo. Being suspicious I checked out the negatives thinking that perhaps something had happened during processing and someone else's photo ended up in the wrong envelop. The negative for this photo is the first photo in one of the strips that were all MY pictures. Weird but still figure it was something in the processing department.
Also had one roll of film taken with a Nikon 35mm out at Devil's Tower. The negatives on either side of the picture in question were okay. One very good, dead on photo of Devil's Tower, taken at a distance came out with a heavy Magenta cover to everything. Again, another processing problem?
|
|
|
|
12/17/2005 04:56:59 PM · #18 |
yes, and yes
did the negative in the first incident match the film type and number sequence as the rest of the negs?
Originally posted by Caitlyn:
Is it just my computer or does anyone else have difficulty with the screen viewing of this thread? It's too big for my screen and I'm having to close the bookmark frame and still have to use the slides at the bottom to read the posts. Darned annoying. Odd thing is this is the only thread to do it so far.
Also, not having even the slightest idea of what happens to my film after I take it to the local drug store......
Back in the mid - late 80's I was living in DeKalb, IL. I owned my own 35 mm ps, Minolta Freedom II. It was late spring, early summer and a NEW roll of film. All of the pictures except for one were photos I could account for. One photo appeared to be of someone skiing down a very snow covered mountain. Last I knew there are no mountains around DeKalb and I didn't take that photo. Being suspicious I checked out the negatives thinking that perhaps something had happened during processing and someone else's photo ended up in the wrong envelop. The negative for this photo is the first photo in one of the strips that were all MY pictures. Weird but still figure it was something in the processing department.
Also had one roll of film taken with a Nikon 35mm out at Devil's Tower. The negatives on either side of the picture in question were okay. One very good, dead on photo of Devil's Tower, taken at a distance came out with a heavy Magenta cover to everything. Again, another processing problem? |
|
|
|
|
12/17/2005 05:02:04 PM · #19 |
I'd have to dig out the negatives which could take a very long time as I'm not positive where I put them. We have the grandkids this weekend but will look on Monday to see if it is where I think/hope it is.
Originally posted by saintaugust:
yes, and yes
did the negative in the first incident match the film type and number sequence as the rest of the negs?
Originally posted by Caitlyn:
Is it just my computer or does anyone else have difficulty with the screen viewing of this thread? It's too big for my screen and I'm having to close the bookmark frame and still have to use the slides at the bottom to read the posts. Darned annoying. Odd thing is this is the only thread to do it so far.
Also, not having even the slightest idea of what happens to my film after I take it to the local drug store......
Back in the mid - late 80's I was living in DeKalb, IL. I owned my own 35 mm ps, Minolta Freedom II. It was late spring, early summer and a NEW roll of film. All of the pictures except for one were photos I could account for. One photo appeared to be of someone skiing down a very snow covered mountain. Last I knew there are no mountains around DeKalb and I didn't take that photo. Being suspicious I checked out the negatives thinking that perhaps something had happened during processing and someone else's photo ended up in the wrong envelop. The negative for this photo is the first photo in one of the strips that were all MY pictures. Weird but still figure it was something in the processing department.
Also had one roll of film taken with a Nikon 35mm out at Devil's Tower. The negatives on either side of the picture in question were okay. One very good, dead on photo of Devil's Tower, taken at a distance came out with a heavy Magenta cover to everything. Again, another processing problem? |
|
|
|
|
|
12/17/2005 05:27:51 PM · #20 |
Rose
I have pm'd you
Pauline
|
|
|
|
12/17/2005 05:28:23 PM · #21 |
|
|
|
12/17/2005 05:54:41 PM · #22 |
Yes this thread is wide for me too!
|
|
|
|
12/17/2005 05:56:13 PM · #23 |
Rose, your second pic is too wide and is causing people to have to scroll this page sideways... might want to edit to make that a link instead of photo.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2005 05:58:49 PM · #24 |
I just see a bubble??? no woman nothing
Originally posted by OdysseyF22:
Hmmm, interesting thread. Here's a pic of mine, taken at a covered bridge in rural VT. I was out with my Rebel and my little brother was playing with my old Nikon P&S and came up with this. If you look at the "bubble" (and I have no idea what caused it) there looks to be a woman standing in a hat and old-fashioned dress, perhaps with a man to her right. My brother saw them first and showed me, he said it looked like she had a rifle and the guy was a soldier.
Who knows....not sure that I buy that it's ghosts, prolly just some weird flare, but it's kinda cool.
Full Pic
Close up of area |
|
|
|
|
12/17/2005 06:05:14 PM · #25 |
Most likely the "bubble" is a fresh water droplet on the lens. I see the people you are talking about, but I see them as distortions of the rocks through the bubble. Not ghosties here either.
Originally posted by OdysseyF22:
Hmmm, interesting thread. Here's a pic of mine, taken at a covered bridge in rural VT. I was out with my Rebel and my little brother was playing with my old Nikon P&S and came up with this. If you look at the "bubble" (and I have no idea what caused it) there looks to be a woman standing in a hat and old-fashioned dress, perhaps with a man to her right. My brother saw them first and showed me, he said it looked like she had a rifle and the guy was a soldier.
Who knows....not sure that I buy that it's ghosts, prolly just some weird flare, but it's kinda cool.
Full Pic
Close up of area |
|
|
